Neanderthal democide, genocide ...

[Wizard]

@Nickdfresh

…I think there’s a theory that the modern man may have decimated the neanderthals in what amounted to a democide for control of Europe…

Not really. Most archeologists and anthropologists who have studied the issue, if they have any opinion at all, believe that Neanderthals simply were not well equipped to compete with more or less modern humans. Neanderthal groups, for instance, habitually chose habitation sites in river valleys, whereas modern humans usually chose hill-top sites, which allowed them to better see the movements of game. Besides, there is by no means any consensus as to exactly what caused the demise of the various Neanderthal populations.

@Nickdfresh

The low level of culture is a bastardized mix of local and Euro traditions and most of the educated Africans flee to the West making it easier for the tin-pot *****s like Mugabe to take over or retain control. And if you’re speaking of Rwanda, that is a classic example of a patchwork country arbitrarily created where none existed, and forcing two competing tribes into a coexistence resulting in decades of instability…

It’s naive to think that tribal animosity in Africa began with the grouping of hostile tribes together into artificial national structures which were convenient to the colonial governments. Tribal hostilities in Africa have their roots many thousands of years in the past as cultural groups moved about the continent in search of more abundant game, water, and other natural resources. African tribes seldom pay much attention to national boundaries anyway. What does contribute tribal violence is when one tribe attains a position of dominant political power in a region which contains fragments of other hostile tribal groupings and uses that power to unfairly allocate economic resources. But this is certainly NOT a situation that is limited to Africa or which is unknown even in North America.

[Nickdfresh]

@Wizard

Not really. Most archeologists and anthropologists who have studied the issue, if they have any opinion at all, believe that Neanderthals simply were not well equipped to compete with more or less modern humans. Neanderthal groups, for instance, habitually chose habitation sites in river valleys, whereas modern humans usually chose hill-top sites, which allowed them to better see the movements of game. Besides, there is by no means any consensus as to exactly what caused the demise of the various Neanderthal populations.

Actually it is a theory. http://www.neanderthal-man.com/genocide.html

Now, that’s just to say that it is only a theory and necessarily not “the truth,” consensus, nor fact because it would be almost impossible to be certain to say which factors, such as environment and competition, were most prevalent in the dissappearance the neaderthal man and I agree with most of what you say.

It’s naive to think that tribal animosity in Africa began with the grouping of hostile tribes together into artificial national structures which were convenient to the colonial governments. Tribal hostilities in Africa have their roots many thousands of years in the past as cultural groups moved about the continent in search of more abundant game, water, and other natural resources. African tribes seldom pay much attention to national boundaries anyway. What does contribute tribal violence is when one tribe attains a position of dominant political power in a region which contains fragments of other hostile tribal groupings and uses that power to unfairly allocate economic resources. But this is certainly NOT a situation that is limited to Africa or which is unknown even in North America.

Of course there have always been rivalries between competing ethnicities in Africa. So, why wouldn’t arbitrary groupings of them into nation states in itself result in violence, chaos, and fundamental instability? You only have to look at the nation states of Rwanda, Burundi, and the current long war in the Congo to see that. Or perhaps what too place in the former Yugoslavia…

[Wizard]

@Nickdfresh

Actually it is a theory. http://www.neanderthal-man.com/genocide.html…

The statement “but from there either warfare or competition for resources must have been key…” is hardly evidence that anyone holds a theory that modern humans practiced genocide on their more primitive cousins. The article is sensationalist and suggests a “genocide” theory where none exists. To suggest there was competition between Neanderthals and modern humans, and even to suggest, by using the term “warfare”, it may have turned violent at times, does not mean anyone believes such competition constituted an attempt by modern humans to deliberately exterminate Neanderthals. The author is clearly using the suggestion of “genocide” to sell his article.

@Nickdfresh

Of course there have always been rivalries between competing ethnicities in Africa. So, why wouldn’t arbitrary groupings of them into nation states in itself result in violence, chaos, and fundamental instability? You only have to look at the nation states of Rwanda, Burundi, and the current long war in the Congo to see that. Or perhaps what too place in the former Yugoslavia…

Because the cultures involved were already in serious conflict, and engaged in trying to eliminate each other long before Europeans superimposed their ideas of national structure on tribal society. It wasn’t that the colonial boundaries changed anything for the tribal conflicts, made them more intense, or more frequent. In fact, an argument could be made that, in some cases, the imposition of colonial government actually dampened the conflicts by imposing the same laws, more or less impartially applied by the Europeans, on tribal societies. Of course, this wasn’t the case in every situation. The current war in the Congo was not caused by colonial boundaries being imposed on geographic tribal structure, but by conflict over finite natural resources by small political elites within the tribes. These political elites use the long history of tribal animosity to promote their own selfish interests without regard for the larger implications.